Seriously, who gives a crap? Anyone remotely interested in this dinosaur "rock" band bought the albums or CDs long ago. This is dumb. Almost as dumb as calling a gimped Internet tablet "magical".
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google and Amazon Bid for The Beatles' Catalog as EMI and Apple Corps Squabbled
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As disclosure, I love the Beatles, but come on...hate? That word is so overused nowadays that it has lost all meaning.
Yes, I certainly am. I didn't figure that many people would pop for $150.00. It just show the "legs" that the boys music still has. I think it's great to see. This is going to expose their music to a lot more people. Sure, everybody has heard of them, but being able to preview the songs right on your computer,phone or tablet and buy them on the spot, is going to really take things to a whole other level.
Nonsense. I find it amazing that so many people are freaking out because Apple made a big deal out of landing The Beatles. OMG, they took over the whole front page of apple.com! They told us it was going to be an unforgettable day! The jerks!
What did you expect them to do? Just issue a press release: "Oh, by the way, The Beatles are now on iTunes. We didn't want to make too big of a deal over this, after all, they broke up 40 years ago. We just thought we should let you know. You probably don't care, if you did, you probably already have their music."
I was a huge major coup for them to finally pull this off. They have been working of this deal for years. Of course they are going to make a big deal over it. If I was Steve, I would have done even more.
Last edited:
I don't tink anyone is saying they don't want The Beatles in the iTunes Store. More music the better. It's just the way Apple went about it. We didn't need this way over hyped lack luster event. Especially don't need The Beatles over taking the whole Apple home page. I thought Apple sold computers and software and are not a record label.
If you consider a webpage change and some catchy words an event then yeah sure.
You're right Ke$ha doesn't top the albums, iTS US has #1 and #2 albums Rihanna and Glee, Beatles start at #7 but have a lot in close succession.
Maybe, but the CD sets were released 14 months ago.
The ONLY people who overhyped the event are the people who are now butt hurt that the announcement wasn't about something else.
"OMG this is GOnNA BE ABouT tEH cloUD iTUNEZ!!!one!11!! This event is gonna be hugezorz!!!1"
Nope. There are things like this all the time. Not to mention that there's no monopoly since you can already buy it on CD.
[ 1848 comments ]
^^ I guess that answers your question? Not to mention the sales numbers...
You actually think the ratings on MR mean ANYTHING?
Let's see, lots of sales and some whining from fanboys who wanted Powerbook G5/xMac/cloud iTunes/A Pony. Yeah, that sure is a failure.
If someone doesn't like the beatles, that's their prerogative. But trying to spin personal taste into a company's "failure" just comes off as whining and trolling.
The teen and adult generation 1960-1970. Basically, hippies and college professors ...
... oh sorry ... same thing ...
just hippies ...
The Joke Is On Apple
Right now Amazon is selling the brand new remastered Beatles CD's for $7.99 apiece. Free shipping for orders over $25 and no sales tax. So, after all the years of hype and negotiations, Apple just got blown out of the water. It will take a few seconds to import each CD into your library, but for $5 bucks per album, that's a no-brainer. The red and blue compilation albums are $12.99 at Amazon vs. $19.99 on iTunes.
Right now Amazon is selling the brand new remastered Beatles CD's for $7.99 apiece. Free shipping for orders over $25 and no sales tax. So, after all the years of hype and negotiations, Apple just got blown out of the water. It will take a few seconds to import each CD into your library, but for $5 bucks per album, that's a no-brainer. The red and blue compilation albums are $12.99 at Amazon vs. $19.99 on iTunes.
Side note: Another reason this is a pretty big deal is that it (for now at least) resolves decades of sparring between the two corporations. The genuinely bad blood between Apple Computer and the Beatle's label started long before the iTunes store was even a glimmer in SJ's eye, with multiple big, rancorous and long-lasting trademark disputes.
History of trademark disputes between Apple Corps and Apple Computer
1978–1981
In 1978, Apple Corps, the Beatles-founded holding company and owner of their record label, Apple Records, filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. This amount had been estimated to be US$50–US$250 million, but was later revealed to be US$80,000.[1] As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business.[2][3]
1986–1989
In 1986, Apple Computer added MIDI and audio-recording capabilities to its computers, including the advanced 5503 sound chip from famous synthesizer maker Ensoniq into the Apple IIGS line. In 1989, this led Apple Corps to sue again, claiming violation of the 1981 settlement agreement.[2] The outcome of this litigation effectively spelled the end of any further development of the highly profitable Apple II line, all forays at the time by Apple Computer into the multimedia field in parallel with the Amiga, and any future advanced built-in musical hardware in the Macintosh line.[citation needed]
1991
In 1991, another settlement involving payment of around US$26.5 million to Apple Corps was reached.[4] This time[clarification needed], an Apple employee named Jim Reekes had included a sampled system sound called Chimes to the Macintosh operating system (the sound was later renamed to sosumi, to be read phonetically as “so sue me”). Outlined in the settlement was each company’s respective trademark rights to the term “Apple”. Apple Corps held the right to use Apple on any “creative works whose principal content is music”, while Apple Computer held the right to use Apple on “goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content”, but not on content distributed on physical media.[5] In other words, Apple Computer agreed that it would not package, sell or distribute physical music materials.
2003–2006
In September 2003, Apple Corps sued Apple Computer again, this time for breach of contract, in using the Apple logo in the creation and operation of Apple Computer’s iTunes Music Store, which Apple Corps contended was a violation of the previous agreement....
1978–1981
In 1978, Apple Corps, the Beatles-founded holding company and owner of their record label, Apple Records, filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. This amount had been estimated to be US$50–US$250 million, but was later revealed to be US$80,000.[1] As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business.[2][3]
1986–1989
In 1986, Apple Computer added MIDI and audio-recording capabilities to its computers, including the advanced 5503 sound chip from famous synthesizer maker Ensoniq into the Apple IIGS line. In 1989, this led Apple Corps to sue again, claiming violation of the 1981 settlement agreement.[2] The outcome of this litigation effectively spelled the end of any further development of the highly profitable Apple II line, all forays at the time by Apple Computer into the multimedia field in parallel with the Amiga, and any future advanced built-in musical hardware in the Macintosh line.[citation needed]
1991
In 1991, another settlement involving payment of around US$26.5 million to Apple Corps was reached.[4] This time[clarification needed], an Apple employee named Jim Reekes had included a sampled system sound called Chimes to the Macintosh operating system (the sound was later renamed to sosumi, to be read phonetically as “so sue me”). Outlined in the settlement was each company’s respective trademark rights to the term “Apple”. Apple Corps held the right to use Apple on any “creative works whose principal content is music”, while Apple Computer held the right to use Apple on “goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content”, but not on content distributed on physical media.[5] In other words, Apple Computer agreed that it would not package, sell or distribute physical music materials.
2003–2006
In September 2003, Apple Corps sued Apple Computer again, this time for breach of contract, in using the Apple logo in the creation and operation of Apple Computer’s iTunes Music Store, which Apple Corps contended was a violation of the previous agreement....
Until....
On 5 February 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to “Apple” and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. The settlement ends the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The settlement includes terms that are confidential, although newspaper accounts at the time stated that Apple Computer was buying out Apple Corps' trademark rights for a total of $500 million U.S.
So... ...only the fact that both sides were beginning to look forward by then to how both could make a slug of money from getting the Beatles on iTunes probably avoided another big suit from "Apple Corp" when Apple Computer became (no similarity here!) "Apple, Inc."
Yep no one cares on this internet forum but look at the sales already. Its certainly been a good move for Apple and Apple. The £125 box set is 31st in the album chart, thats amazing!
So maybe you don't care but a hell of a lot of other people obviously care.
So maybe you don't care but a hell of a lot of other people obviously care.
The Sales Speak for Themselves
For those who think "nobody cares." keep in mind that two or three of the Beatles albums are in the top 10 on iTunes already. And the remastered CD's that were released last year were among the top sellers for the year.
What passes for "music" in today's market, like the recycled rap junk and the high octave wailing that gets played on the radio is pretty sick. One only wonders what will happen when kiddie pop and junk music lose their appeal completely. Will artists go back to things like harmony and melody?
We can only hope!
For those who think "nobody cares." keep in mind that two or three of the Beatles albums are in the top 10 on iTunes already. And the remastered CD's that were released last year were among the top sellers for the year.
What passes for "music" in today's market, like the recycled rap junk and the high octave wailing that gets played on the radio is pretty sick. One only wonders what will happen when kiddie pop and junk music lose their appeal completely. Will artists go back to things like harmony and melody?
We can only hope!
Must be lonely in your corner of the world, for just about everyone else feels the opposite. Apple making premium products is what they are known for.
Now we know the reason for the announcement:
Apple wanted to rub it in Google and Amazon's face about getting the rights.
Apple wanted to rub it in Google and Amazon's face about getting the rights.
Oh, and there's one more thing...
Yeah, and there's also the small matter of making a whole lot of money.
Yeah, and there's also the small matter of making a whole lot of money.
Yer the joke is really on Apple, just have a look at the album charts. The $149 box set is number 11 and the beatles have 9 albums in the top 20.
old people said the same thing about the beatles and every new band and form of music in the last 50 years
when the kids become old people they hate their kids' music and the previous crap music becomes art
Trusting the billboard ratings from the same company who sells the songs to begin with. Hurray honesty!
Sucker born every minute
Sorry. Won't ever happen. There may not be anything new in the music business any more, but there will always be a new audience.
The Beatles' hits are 40+ years old, but they still sound fresh. Why? Because current recording artists are still copying them.
Sorry. Won't ever happen. There may not be anything new in the music business any more, but there will always be a new audience.
The Beatles' hits are 40+ years old, but they still sound fresh. Why? Because current recording artists are still copying them.
Surely they would be top if the figures were being fiddled and the uk charts aren't quite as impressive as the us. We're not talking about Amazon here